Talk:Pond aeration

Incorrect article title

This article only makes sense if the reader assumes that it refers to an artificial or amenity pond. It makes no sense whatsoever for the vast majority of pond which are natural and get along just fine without human help. Taking the title at face value - much of the article is just plain wrong. Since when were nutrients "harmful". Under what circumstances can "(ponds with)....deficient levels of DO ... begin to suffer from eutrophication" ? The only simple way to rectify this is to change the title. Anybody object if I move this to Amenity pond aeration ? Velela ^{Velela Talk} 21:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change wording, not title

I object to the moving of this page to Amenity pond aeration for the reason that pond aeration of this type can be employed in more than just amenity ponds. For instance, stormwater management ponds often benefit from pond aeration of this nature. If there are wording issues, such as the above mentioned "harmful nutrients" phrase, I suggest that those phrases be adjusted instead of moving the entire article. Additionally, deficient levels of dissolved oxygen are often a step in the direction of eutrophication as plummeting oxygen levels suffocate fish and other aquatic life, giving rise to a dead zone. You seem to be a very knowledgable and accomplished person, and I certainly do not mean to discredit you in any way, but I do think that this article is most beneficial at its current location. For more information and comments concerning this article, see Velela's talk page. Trlabarge (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pond aeration

(Copied in entire from Velela's talk page to bring the discussion into one place)

I appreciate the attention that you have given to my recently posted Pond aeration page. This is my first stab at a Wikipedia entry, so I will gladly accept any help or suggestions. I apologize for the references, and have added ISBN numbers as well as some web links. Additionally, any wording and/or economizing of my writing and information is welcomed so long as it does not detract from the content of the article.

That being said, I do not think that much of my information is completely misguided as you seem to suggest to MrOllie: "There is a great deal which is just plain wrong and only makes sense if the reader assumes that this only applies to amenity ponds. Even then it is still wrong." While I do not claim that the science behind my writing is flawless, I do not believe it to be grossly inaccurate either. For instance, this type of aeration is not limited simply to amenity ponds, as oftentimes stormwater management ponds require aeration in order to prevent eutrophication. Much of this is covered in the Pond Management Guidebook, which was deleted from the external links section. While I understand the deletion of some of the links provided, I believe that the Pond Management Guidebook, as well as the Copper Sulfate white paper are both legitimate, useful resources that can be helpful to those seeking information on this subject.

In addition, the majority of my information is cited, and while I appreciate any suggestions and/or criticism, if you are going to add or change any of my information, it may be helpful for you to add citations of your own. Lastly, I would contend that pond aeration is not limited to only seriously polluted or amenity ponds. It may be the most beneficial when employed in seriously polluted ponds, but it can technically be added to any pond. In other words, the process of aeration itself is not dependent upon the pond being seriously polluted. Trlabarge (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is very unusual to find a first article posted to Wikipedia with all Wikilinks in place and 33K in length without even a first attempt in the sandbox. Coupled with that a first edit at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion is not the usual pattern of editing anticipated from a novice editor. If indeed this is your first time on Wikipedia I am sorry if my comments seemed terse. However, to respond to your points:

When I said to Mr Ollie that there is much that is just plain wrong I was writing in particular of the concept that de-oxygenation leads to eutrophication (which you have repeated in today's comments). It doesn't. There are complex processes in the hypolimnion, especially in lakes, in which phosphorous is recirculated during autumn turnover. This relates to changing redox conditions and I know of no research that suggests that manual re-aeration in any way causes re-adsorption of Phosphorous in an anoxic pond. The nitrogen cycle compounds are almost all highly soluble (except for the short time when they are tied up in proteins) and all are available to plants whether highly oxidised as in Nitrate or highly reduced as in Ammonia. I know of no research that suggests any significant quantity of nitrogen is lost in aeration except under the highly specialised conditions present in well managed activated sludge plants.

The sentence
"If (nutrients) are not being broken down quickly enough, an additional input of oxygen paired with a mixing of the sections and layers of the pond may be necessary in order to maintain a healthy pond ecosystem."
Makes no sense. Oxygen does not break down nutrients. What oxygen does do is to oxidise organic matter so that the demand for more oxygen is reduced. Nutrients are largely unaffected.

"Additionally, stagnant water offers the most prosperous of mosquito breeding habitats".
. What references are for this. I don't know of any research that supports it. Mosquitoes and many other dipteran species thrive in poorly oxygenated waters because they have special adaptations and they also have few predators there but they seem to lay their eggs in all sorts of waters. They thrive less well in oxygenated waters generally because they form an important part of the food chain for Odonata, amphibia, fish etc. etc. The suggestion that simple oxygenation might be a remedy is not supported by the reference that you quote (on of the few that I was able to access)

I have numerous other issues such as the lack of a world wide view; currencies expressed in dollars and no view as to what might happen elsewhere. Mosquitoes noted - but what about the equivalent species in other parts of the world (midges, gnats, sand-flies, black flies); no mention of where in the world the statements in the article hold true (Arctic waters? temperate waters? Mediterranean climate waters? tropical waters? etc.).

Velela ^{Velela Talk} 16:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Forward

I certainly cannot claim to be the authority on Environmental Science that you appear to be. That being said, perhaps we could collaborate and work in tandem on this until everything is set straight? I'm certain that I could benefit from much of your knowledge/insight/etc. I would be very appreciative, and so will any readers of this page I'm sure. I will now respond to your comments in turn:

My comments about eutrophication are tidbits I have picked up from articles and textbooks. That was how I interpreted the information. Apparently my understanding of the definition was incorrect. Feel free to explain eutrophication on the page as you see fit with your sources referenced.
The main concept I was attempting to convey, in regards to the addition of oxygen and the breakdown of nutrients, is that the addition of oxygen allows aerobic bacteria to thrive, and it is those bacteria that then break down the nitrogen and phosphorus that often contribute to the production of algae. I believe this information to be correct.
I actually wondered to myself as I was writing this page about the use of the dollar as opposed to the pound, the euro, etc. In the end I opted for the dollar because I believe it is still recognized as the dominant world currency, and many other currencies are pegged against it. Do you have any suggestions for how I can keep the Cost section while accounting for more than just the dollar?
I have very limited knowledge about insects, and therefore would not feel comfortable writing about midges, gnats, sand-flies, black flies as you suggested. Perhaps the mosquito breeding section could be expanded to include other insects as well? The sentence about stagnant waters being optimal for mosquito breeding can be eliminated if a source cannot be found.

I assure you that this indeed is my initial attempt at a Wikipedia article. I'll also admit that my first edit on the Wikipedia:Redirects for Discussion page was done more out of ignorance than anything. Trlabarge (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to contribute as time allows. I should admit that I am not an Environmental Scientist but rather a freshwater aquatic environmental scientist, and freshwater limnology has been my professional speciality for around 50 years. However Wikipedia allows me to contribute much more widely than just my specialism and, probably more important, I am retired and its good to forget work and explore other areas - so I can't promise any quick input.

If I was the major editor here, I would very seriously consider merging the content of this article into Water aeration where it would fit well. At present another editor may see this as simply a WP:CFORK so it might be better to bite the bullet now rather than having it forced in the future. Velela ^{Velela Talk} 18:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for all the advice and suggestions. You've been a great help already. Trlabarge (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]